Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Alok Mahra, J
AMIT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
BA1 No. 2120 of 2024 | Case Crim e/ FI R No. 462 of 2024
No.
Date
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
BA1 No. 2120 of 2024 H o n ’ b l e A l o k M a h r a , J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for t he applicant . 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht , learned D.A.G. for t he St at e. 3. The applicant – Am it , who is in j udicial cust ody in connect ion wit h Case Crim e/ FI R No. 462 of 2024, under Sect ions 65( 1) , 89, 351( 2) , 351( 3) , 127( 2) of BNS , 2023 and Sect ion 3( A) / 4( 2) , 5( l) / 6 of POCSO , regist ered at P.S.- Pat hri, Dist rict Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for t he part ies and perused t he records. 5. I n t his case, FI R was lodged by t he fat her of t he vict im against t he applicant , his sist er- in- law and sist er, wherein, he has alleged t hat t he applicant raped his m inor daught er ( vict im ) in connivance and help of his sist er- in- law and sist er. Aft er invest igat ion, charges under Sect ions 65( 1) , 89, 351( 2) , 351( 3) , 127( 2) of BNS , 2023 and Sect ion 3( A) / 4( 2) , 5( l) / 6 of POCSO were fram ed against t he applicant and t he I nvest igat ing Officer did not find involvem ent of sist er- in- law and sist er of t he applicant in t he said incident . 6. Learned counsel for t he applicant would subm it t hat st at em ent s of t he m ot her of t he vict im , vict im and her fat her have been recorded as PW- 2, PW- 3 and PW- 4 respect ively. I n t hese st at em ent s, all wit nesses have becom e host ile and have
t ot ally denied t he happening of t he said incident . Furt herm ore, learned counsel for t he applicant has drawn at t ent ion of t his Court t o t he m edical report dat ed 11.08.2024. Perusal of t he m edical report would also say t hat t here is no definit e opinion about t he rape and abort ion on t he vict im . Besides t his, learned counsel for t he applicant has also disput ed t he correct age of t he vict im . I n t he st at em ent of t he fat her of t he vict im , he has subm it t ed t hat t he vict im is about 17 years of age and at t he t im e when she was adm it t ed in Class I in prim ary school, she was m uch older but her age was recorded as 5 years. Per 7. cont ra, learned St at e Counsel vehem ent ly opposed t he bail applicat ion and would subm it t hat it is evident from t he st at em ent s of m inor vict im t hat present applicant was m aking physical relat ions wit h her since one year. 8. Having considered t he subm issions of learned counsel for t he part ies and aft er going t hrough t he m at erial available on record, st at em ent of t he vict im , st at em ent s of fat her and m ot her of t he vict im , and also aft er perusing t he m edical report , and, also considering t he fact t hat t here is a disput e about t he age of t he vict im and also t hat since t he vict im and all t he wit nesses have denied t he happening of t he very incident , t herefore, prim a facie, t his Court is of t he view t hat it is a case fit for bail and t he applicant deserves t o be enlarged on bail. 9. Accordingly, t he present bail applicat ion is allowed. 10. Let t he applicant be released on bail on his execut ing a personal bond and
furnishing t wo reliable suret ies each of t he like am ount , t o t he sat isfact ion of t he court concerned. ( A l o k M a h r a J.) 04.09.2025 Uj j wal
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
